Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the update appears on the LIVE public status page and that notify=true triggers subscriber notifications. This adds meaningful behavioral context for an agent deciding whether the action is appropriate. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then adds the endpoint and key behavioral caveat. No filler is present, and the examples and live-page warning earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with a full input schema, the description plus annotations is sufficient to invoke it correctly: required parameters are in the schema, the public effect is stated, and the notify behavior is explained. It does not cover response/error details, but no output schema exists and these are not essential for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description largely repeats the type examples and notify behavior already present in the schema rather than adding new parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (POST an update), a specific resource (existing incident), and the lifecycle stage values. It also distinguishes itself from incident creation and read-only tools by explicitly targeting an existing incident on the LIVE public status page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: when an incident already exists and the agent needs to post a status update. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as statuspal_update_incident or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.